tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 8, 2013 10:30pm-12:31am EST
the pipeline would have little to no impact on greenhouse emissions. from our perspective, we were quite happy to hear the president's test that he was going to look to see if the pipeline exacerbated global ghg. host: callers waiting to talk to you. would be interesting to see how much the money our government has now spent examining keystone xl. carl, goh ahead -- go ahead in los angeles democratic caller. caller: let me say first of all, i've been watching this c-span sense 1980. producing or just -- it is devastating the land.
number two, it doesn't matter, this oil is going overseas period. every ounce of oil that recovered from the ground even in the united states is sold on the market of the world. we produce more oil than anything else. our number one export is gasoline. host: okay, mr. pourbaix. guest: carl was braking up there a little bit. once again, he was referring to the environmental issue of the oilsands and talking about this argument that the oil is for export. let me say right off the bat. nothing could be further from the truth. once again, i'm all about the facts. let's talk about the facts. right now the u.s. consumes
about 15 million barrels of oil a day. they are one of the largest consumers of oil on the plan pet -- planet. they import everyday about 7 or 8 million barrels of oil. this pipeline is a pipeline from producing areas in canada and u.s. to refineries in the gulf coast. that is not a pipeline to export terminals. it's a pipeline to refineries. to suggest that these these refineries in the u.s. gulf coast who are importing millions of oil a day from venezuela and saudi arabia and take that cheaper oil and put it through tankers, pay money to move that oil to other destinations and import higher priced oil just boggles the mind. nothing could be further from the truth. we know every one of consumers of oil, not one drop of oil is
going offshore. host: donna from massachusetts, democratic caller. caller: i am from first nation people. from the time colonization and the conquering oil the americans globally, this has been the same denial story over and over again. host: we have a few minutes left. what are you referring to? caller: i'm referring to the fact that this is doing no harm to mother earth. no harm to our water. no harm to the people that live upon this earth and animals. this is all about money. this is all about destroying land. this is not about the betterment of the people. this is about the betterment of
the people who have so much money they don't know what to do with it. it's disgusting, this country cannot sit and tell the truth from the time of -- people should understand that every agreement that this country has made with the people, regarding land has been broken. host: we'll leave it there. move on to larry in santa barbara, california, independent caller. caller: i got a question for the people to represent the oil industry. given that people of canada have opposed construction of a pipeline, it's my understanding to the west coast, north america for transport of the tar sands oil. how are we the people of the united states, what are we like second class citizens that we
would approve this. how much by comparison co2 is generated through the extraction process of getting the oil out of the sands compared to normal pumping of oil out of the ground? guest: larry, i'll first deal with your question about the co2 generated. if the work that i've seen the most recent work has been done by sera which is the world renowned energy consultant based in the u.s. they did a comprehensive analysis of the energy g.h.g. emissions of various types of crude. they found that on a wells to wheels basis, that oilsands crude was somewhere in the range of three to six percent greater g.h.g. density than the average barrel of crude in the u.s.
the important point we're displacing oil that otherwise would be come into gulf coast refineries. these refineries are configured to run heavy oil. right now they're getting that heavy oil from venezuela, mexico and california and frankly, when you compare it to those types of oil, the g.h.g. emissions are identical. it's important to remember at the start. 80 to 90 percent of the emissions produced and using barrel of oil come out of the tail pipes of vehicles. .....
ceased being delivered to the united states. the impact on health, well this, they covey economy of the u.s., people may noty, very like to hear it but this economy right now is very, i ry dependent on oil and gas. i cannot imagine a world they are not available tot the consumer.time >> host: we have capital hill hearings end a bit it but what have you heard from finazed?a administration wed the state department report we will be finalized? tha >> we don't hear much morestat than anyone else to be on this. our ceo was meeting with the state department last week a
and we expect expect to see a final environmental impact statement issued by the state department sometime towards the end of the year. if you just look through the process, we are probably looking at something around three months or four months, give or take, is issued.inal eis sometime in the first quarter, early in the second quarter next year, i would expect a decision on this. >> we want to thank our guest -- host: we want to thank you for joining us for joining us from cushing, oklahoma this morning. appreciate your time. guest: happy to do it. thank you, greta. host: thank you for welcoming us to the terminal there and oklahoma, enbridge, one of 13 companies operating
>> cannot believe it will be very easy for us to make an agreement between the republicans and democrats because they want to increase taxes and sequestration it seems to be there will be a willingness of republicans to give something up on sequestration that only that would happen if there is a long-term solution that we can arrive at between social security and medicare including tax reform. i am so pessimistic but i know congressman ryan is working very closely with patty murray of the senate budget committee to get in that direction and. it is a tough row to hoe.
>> the mercedes benz superdome in new orleans built entirely at public expense after hurricane katrina, had badly damaged, when it posted football games again it was a national field good story but the public paid for all repairs the league play in a token amount the public is invested $1 billion of the mercedes benz superdome and the man who owns the door lints states keeps almost all revenue generated. most people don't understand this is taking place they feel there is nothing they can do about it that it is
based on insider diesel -- deals and it is. the last time there was a vote in miami last year whether to use public money to renovate where the miami dolphins play and the citizens voted against it. they got to vote. >> thank you, shuja. thank you all for coming. we don't want to break the microphone. it's a nice, cold, clear day in washington and i think it's the same in geneva, and i >> it is a nice cold cleary fr day is in washington and the same in geneva i had trouble w carry myself away from twitter this morning so i tipe someone who isconnec following here in thet is haeninge will let us know. clearly there is a connection between geneva
and here.ir if there is an improvement of relations between the united states and iran andn's r the western community andeighbor that we're focusing today on the eastern neighbors today specifically pakistan and fact india while i read istorically considered a middle eastern country for u.s. policyatr including a bigger role to help afghanistan's manage
water resources which is acontri key issue for our brand as aal downstream neighbor is the united states has other regional problems withous benefi energy shortages a and drug trafficking this has to turntana this benefit for iran, pakistan, india and into the united statesinc indirectly because of the o drug trafficking.my goo frien the principal author of thise's report is an expert in southystd asia and has worked as anshe's t currtly presids written widely in english to a person isn't a frequent-based pitcher to james publications is with the virginia-based companye kn yearializing to analyze foreign media.essed by the i have known her five years.for have always been impressedeaker by the depth of her knowledge and passion. next we have a new speakerngnee
here who is the senior research geographer the u.s.e b army corps of engineers whenre she began a study that you will hear more about end with that basic an end she served in afghanistan as a senior adviser on watershed sut management to the commanding ant general of regional commando southwest and has a b.a. in waterity but in to ph.d. is in the author and co-authora of numerous publications related to water security itknon is a key issue. and the finals speaker known as party who is now director for the center of international cooperation we nie very pleased to be herewas e in the next government officials.
from 2009 through last month he was senior adviser to direcpecial representative at the state department and longtime expert and has directed preventative action at the foreign relations and has taught political science at yale and columbia throughs december 2001 with thehe seetary-h of 9/11 special advisor to the u.n. specialgree representative for afghanistan. during sub period that post-t soith that b bond conference for afghanistan so without ad tn brief introduction of alaska them to make a brief remarks sh.
>> thank you very much barbara. it was very sweet.l for provings i would like to think the lentic counsel for giving us ie the opportunity to discuss the issue that is theity of amazing importance to peace is instability of the whole region. the goal is to attractink is sustainan to the issue is not justbi important for thehe sustainability of afghanistan but also the entire south asia also ofterror, interest with its fightficking
against terrorism in drug trafficking as barbara said. mke so let me just make or explain what the report is about before i start with each country i need to mention the only country in south asia that is not in territorial dispute with its neighbors is every and. -- i ran. nothing similar with pakistan and india or kashmir or anything similar to the territorial dispute with the tribal region, it is not a similar disputeputes
and then on the different camps with the u.s. allies obviously a very close allyso, of the united states. after 1979 revolution, iran expoing offriendships still continued and the exporting of the islamic ideas that was promoting the did that applied to pakistan. but it is a shiite community the into a pakistan society. the
the government or any responsible officials but with india from the middle east in late '60s and '70s the fact that pakistan lost the war to india and lost a big chunk of the territory. with saudi arabia comingit's into new play i think they would evaluate a the -- relation end -- a t devaluation with the shop in india and somehow not
grounds for imposing war sanctions on the aryan. -- iran. very quickly with pakistan it has always been present even with the sovietof occupation with the communist regime in with its presence was with the an taliban that it was hosting afghands hosting millions of privileges it invaded aghanista network to expand into the soft power in afghanistan and also investing heavily after the fall of the taliban.
so it has disrupted the political process in the military in afghanistan to make shorter the cannot be the base and they have managed to do that but as barbara mentioned we believe the issues of south asia do not have a solution. the with the broader issue it is also an issue and iran. and so any solution should also co involve the other parties toin contribute in 2014 with u.s.anku
troops. thank you so much. i am sorry if i am over time the. >>. t >> it is a pleasure to be here this morning and an honor to represent many of the folks behind the search effort with their regional thter security issues tied that all the to afghanistan but its neighbors. been toafgh clarify 1.although i fee2 i could have been inay h afghanistan 2001 throughat. 2012 it was just 2011. [laughter]t is okay.ps was o deployed not as the army corps of engineers but i was
reporting straight to the b community in general and peopled issu was expected to be in kabul. i couldn't understand the situation as it is now without that field experience. i noticed the preacher lisa picture they chose for the bio is me and my chemical fatigue. although i was deployed or often than not i was in the city that i trampled around the helmand river quite a bit and when one of the marines do you think there is any of those soviet mine in here, i said there could be. that is what they would do with the dogtags downstream. we were hot and sweaty and we had an absolutely incredible experience. monitoring the water that is
involved in any of the systems is probably the fundamental challenge to understand water security in the region. there has been no true monitoring on a consistent basis in afghanistan since the late 1970s. and that is something that fundamentally has to change. that is something that some of the isaf forces were working on and finds the problem with the afghan government is trying to work with as well as the local and regional groups. that's where i want to take you in this period prior going in the government service i was a college geography professor so it's important for me to meet sure you have a sense of place and that's why i brought some of these slides. if you don't have and have a cognitive map of afghanistan running through your head right now, try to get where you can be. afghanistan's issues of life and livelihood are tied to water. it's a landlocked country. it also happens to be the headwater to five system to move
into central asia, into iran, into pakistan, and important to note, water flows downstream except when exposed to words money. that was the saying when i taught school in colorado. that was our comment about the colorado river. you can redirect rivers, you can use it to death without ever monitoring it. but unless you know the cost benefits, what's coming in and what's going out, you don't know that what you're doing is sustainable. now, i do want to let you know that one of the topic that i am working on right now as a research scientist for the army corps of engineers has to do with water security and sovereign state stability. because to stabilize the population's movement to support agriculture, to generate energy and to start to sustain public health, you need water. and it underpins the essential services that a country is citizens expect of an established government takes
afghanistan citizens expect that comedy iran citizens expect that, but it's a challenge and it can't be guaranteed. countries around the world peace profound water security challenges and ties to food, energy, climate variability and population dynamics which can exacerbate ethnic and political tensions, negatively affect the social well-being and increase the likelihood of a sovereign state and stability. now, i'm going to click over to the next slide, god willing. if this isn't working i'm going to -- okay. thanks. the stability and economic development in afghanistan hinge on the improved management of its water resources. given the dominance of agriculture in the afghan community, the relatively low fraction of the aerial lay hand and the poor condition of the waters of the country's water infrastructure and the inadequate coordination and planning of water related civil
projects. now, this map has afghanistan space as if it is not tied to any of the countries around it. and also, doesn't show that those watersheds extend into the countries around it so please keep that in mind. that presents a huge balance we make over and over again if we look at countries in isolation but not watersheds regionally. this water is critical. one of the things that has happened since 2002, as we've had civil and military project is developed to ensure progress and stability in afghanistan, water has been considered something called an essential service. it has been bundled into things called the sector working groups. and it's been about infrastructure and it's been about the acquisition of water for a family. for a village but not tied to the scale. this is something that's critically important if we bring down air on downstream. please bear that in mind.
as a member of the army corps of engineers i can tell you engineers want to have a mathematical solution to a problem. what is the diameter to the pipe we need. how much water flows needs to be in place. how do we solve this? that is the algorithm that we use? but this is a human problem and the dynamics are as in critically important as the watersheds because the different types of people who live in the area, the past two and elements in central helmand and the northern part of the helmand watershed compared to the populations downstream and compared to the population helping with some of the construction, all of those factors are critically important so you need a geo- narrative of this area to really understand it and it needs the physical as well as the human components. so, that is what our watersheds look like. since the 1950s when the united states was involved in putting in dams in this area,
the kajaki may be familiar to some of you. they were put in in the 1950s and they were countering activities in the north that was more tied to the soviet union. so in many ways come afghanistan was kind of seeing a proxy war if you will between who can have the influence. in the south it was the right dates through usaid and a number of plans. many of them as with any project that relies on irrigation has to have water. we've built these projects, we've put in things assuming water will be there and that is probably a rather erroneous assumption because many times the water that is there is not in a quantity that is needed and in many times the water that is there is not th a quality that s needed. the romans kne do that in carth, right clicks if you sow the fields will tell the crops. cross. if you water the field that is so high that it retards the
growth of the crop you haven't really solved the problem. you can't put in the wells and assume that is going to bring water to a city or a population of the water from the well is not plausible. in many places in iran unexcused become is probably downstream in the basin. we don't have the hydrogeology studies that are needed to understand if the wells are putting will they solve the problem. this area has been undergoing an enormous amount of drought conditions. as a geography professor, please let me help you understand drought means an anomaly. it's a reduction in water that is anticipated. this area is a desert. there's been less water coming to the river from the central helmand is no pass. water is unpredictable. the water that is contained varies. we have members of challenges in this area. if you can either slide, the
upper left-hand flight is a picture of the river in october. the amount of filth in that river is incredible. you can almost walk on bathwater. it's not something that you can grab a bucket and take him to drink but people do. on the path you will see a floodefloodof cornfield. we have many projects we are growing corn to tell back under to create more organics for the soil and human consumption. there's an enormous amount of transportation where you lose water to the atmosphere from the system so you're losing water that way. it's drought tolerant and salt tolerant and everything that works in this area. and as we try to train the crops and do things differently, those need to be considered. down on the lower left-hand side there is an image of someone with their sheep or out of near
the water every thing and every one loses water from the system, yet it is unreliable. on the right-hand side i was shot down in the area of helmand province which is a semipermanent settlement and they are not getting their water straight from the helmand syst system. this is the agriculture. if you're near an irrigation pal and have water you can have green. if you do not have water it is a desert. unless you are nomadic and move around. i have to catch right on the marines back to get across.
you have to look at a number of scales. the area that is highlighted on the map of th, the most northerd box is around the kajaki reservoir and the boxed area is showing kandahar. you need to consider the water food nexus with all of this because we have a river system with a limited amount of water. that water is being used for the repeated agriculture. the water is being used to produce electricity. kandahar is a consumer of electricity. as we have tried a number of projects represented. to increase the amount of electricity you have to hold water behind the dam to have enough hydraulic head. you have to have enough water behind the dam to generate power releasing it for agriculture further downstream. we have people down there, human
come sunshine of water that is absolutely necessary and this is where it backs up again. these are just a few shots if you've never had the privilege to be out to the reservoir it is quite an engineering project. as i said it was built in the 1950s and the hydropower was added in 1975. period energy and lives have been put into that. we, the united states not only the international forces military but through the usaid and implementing partners have done a lot of work on irrigation, canal rehabilitation that affects the amount of water in its system. we have put in. everything that you move and capture the water upstream you are keeping it from going downstream. remind yourself what is downstream, iran.
the boundary agreement in place. the river accord signed in 1973 determined the specific central amount of water 22 cubic meters per second with an additional 4 cubic meters per second and normal water years. however, this agreement was never fully implement it due to the afghan two. the soviet invasion of afghanistan is like a revolution in iran and the tensions between the taliban and and the tehran government. they have been inconclusive to date. so we're you have usaid projects being funded at ten of water into the new canals the that ise sum of iran is critical.
we have the mountain of thailand's leading down to the low end of desert, draining its two the basin. it was k. mico taken off the kajaki and the release of water. 77 cubic meters per second. this was in october of 2011. i traveled 280 kilometers downstream to the area. it's by an order of magnitude from 77 cubic meters per second to seven. there was no water system. we can use the imagery to determine that is the way that it's been over time the water floods and retreats in the system. we've documented that.
and thanks to the satellites, this is something that could be discussed and shared with our international partners. on a number of slides to have gone in and over the past few years it's been moving actively to conserve water to redirect water for irrigation and its growing population in the regi region. these pictures are right on the border of afghanistan. it is a bustling city. and since 2,009 when the indian government helped fund the road that connects from the border up to the ring road if you are familiar with the jargon that is the road that is on afghanistan and can bring the trade and commerce to the central asia. this is huge. now there's another way to get there. the trucking traffic between iran in afghanistan at the
border crossing, the amount of money that could be tied to the trade and transportation. because otherwise it was not as important. and that's it. thank you. i would say this is a picture down to the port. this is critically important and it's also the port being funded by the indian government to be increased as the trade and traffic could improve with water development strategy and the iranians are noting that as well. thank you for your time and attention. [applause] i should also mention in iran there is a decent it's not just
irrigation for drinking and agriculture but there's a tremendous wildlife refuge. it's a pleasure to speak to you as a powerless person, because i found in my time in government but the fact that my interlocutors found i had the special forces standing behind me to win the argument. that inhibited them from actually hearing what i was saying. so i'm hoping i won't have that problem anymore. we can have more engaging them in -- more of a genuine exchange. i would note that while i won't have time to make any of this explicit, the water issues actually are closely related to
these political security ethnic issues and so on. it's not a coincidence that the river basins coincide with the territories of the leaders that emerge from the civil war. it's not a coincidence that of the borders that cut the water basins in half, and of course nomadism is an adaptation -- nomadism and irrigation are complementary. irrigation brings the water to the people and nomadism brings the people into the animals to the water into both have implications for political authority with military mobilization and so on. the backbone of the caliban and helmand especially from the tribe who were moved to the north where there was more irrigated land by the monarchy and who were expelled from that
area by the generals troops in 2,002 and there have been displaced people in helmand andd where there's an increasing shortage of water. so, reselling them as part of a political settlement but also reply you're dealing with those water issues. now, iran. this administration came into office with the idea of taking among other things a regional approach to afghanistan. the emphasis has been on afghanistan's relationship with pakistan. that is appropriate. that is a very complicated one to understand one that is difficult for the us government. i will tell you a anecdote about this. a few years ago i was at one of these supersecret international meetings off the record so will have to remain supersecret because if people found out what
went on there and they realize how unimportant these meetings actually are and they realize how little goes on there but there is a panel about iran. the question i asked as to the united states of any other enemies with whom it has so many common interests. afterwards, henry kissinger came up to me and said we have more with iran not our other enemies but with most of our allies. the paradox difficulty of the relations in afghanistan. roughly speaking, the us and iranian interests in afghanistan are quite consistent, except insofar as they require a u.s. presence there because the relations overall or antagonistic. overall the us presence to realize goals that are otherwise in the interest are seen as a threat by iran. so, this creates a vote of
confusion. now, as many of you know, i see craig here because i'm about to pull the story that he was part of at the bond talks where craig was part of the u.s. delegation in 2001, the us and iran worked together to reach agreement on the successor government to the caliban. the iranians actually came up to craig and said that they wanted to use this as an opening to discuss and proving relationships with the united states and as i recall he said there are other issues we have to discuss that are in the way of that and he said let's discuss them. they were put in the axis of evil, so move forward. iran nonetheless during the per period managed this contradiction by making them stabilization of afghanistan a
de facto cooperating with the united states, higher priority than its antagonism in the united states and iraq. even as the tensions increased, and to talk about as you may remember in the bush administration the regime change and now they are sitting around the table at least with everything still on it. and despite that, iran still have the position, as i was told being out of the government by iranian officials, that even if the united states attacks iran, iran will not respond in afghanistan or iraq. that was their position. now, the position changed in 2007. when the iranian government decided that the u.s. presence in afghanistan was a bigger threat to iran than instability of afghanistan. it wasn't a black-and-white decision. that was the period in which
iran started getting selected targeted aid to the taliban commanders especially in western afghanistan in order to send a message to the united states. and it was also -- it helped organize demonstrations against the us afghan strategic partnership, which went further than iran wanted some of the dead beat the demonstrators in sharif killed a member of the guards. so i ran i hope learned from that but once you start organizing violence in afghanistan or anywhere you may not be able to control it. and i have been involved in my official capacity in a number of multilateral meetings, the official in a semi- official, where i've come to understand better the iranian position of the stabilization in afghanistan. let me explain what it is and how it relates to the position. first of all, the us from the
beginning of the obama administration, the u.s. want td a direct dialogue with afghanistan about iran. and we never got to that, excuse me a direct dialogue about the afghanistan and we never got to it because obstacles on our side and their side. i want to go into it right now. currently i have the opportunity during the visit to new york to have a few private discussions with iranian officials who might know from all these interactions over the years. their view was that if there's significant progress on the nuclear file that will then create the political space for the u.s.-iran engagement. what are the issues? both u.s. have a common interest in the stabilization of afghanistan, and more than that both the u.s. and iran are trying to the political dispensation in afghanistan acceptable to them. which is not the case for
pakistan which was pushing for certain changes in the political dispensation. however, they have different models of how to move from where we are to a more stable situation. the united states bottle has -- the u.s. government model -- and i don't want to exacerbate the model that i will present it as if it were coherent -- it has one track, which is as we withdraw our combat forces, build up the afghan national security forces, of course support the afghan political process and in particular the presidential elections which are essential for afghanistan's future because strong security forces with no government or not -- strong armed forces without government or not security forces. and at the same time, recognizing that there's a political base as well as other
bases for the insurgency to seek a political settlement, television or other groups on the condition that as part of the agreement they separate from al qaeda and other international terrorist groups and accept the constitutional framework and afghanistan. as the backbone of that, the united states sees a small but important long-term us military presence as well as long-term financial assistance to the afghan security forces as essential to provide a stable force in the course of the transition. of course if it's really successful, we will transition out of that eventually and everyone agrees that the goal should be in afghanistan with no foreign troops. but if we succeed in negotiating the terms of the bilateral security agreement and the us and the afghan security will agree on a long-term presence
for as long as it is needed. now air on's position is that of long-term military presence is in fact a major cause of destabilization in afghanistan. they threat to them. they say it's a threat to other neighbors and even if mr. obama who wants peace if they succeed him and they have a colorful picture of the american scene in whicwhich they want to present e of they said their three groups, powerful in the congress, the neoconservatives, the military companies and the christian extremists who believe that the end of days are coming and that there is no point in seeking peace. so they are not sure who is going to be in the -- in control of the military forces in the future area that is what they say at any rate. and therefore, they say yes we accept the need for a political settlement. that is to say they would be prepared to support some kind of
a negotiated settlement that modifies in some respect to the political dispensation in a way that was not a threat to them or a threat to their allies and friends in afghanistan. but that's impossible as long as there are us troops. in recent years other countries that opposed us presence in particular russia and china have very much modified their position. they still oppose the president basis but still russia and china advised the president of the highest levels. if he's sure to sign a bilateral agreement remarkable for russia in particular which has been quite vocal about this. iran has not yet changed its position about that. the president what he was in new york reiterated a previous positiothe previousposition at d leave afghanistan.
we don't know if the dialogue will lead to a modification of that. but let me briefly see why that would be so important. to the extent that iran has been supporting some television commanders, that shouldn't be misconstrued as support for the taliban. they support armed groups in order to send messages to the united states, perhaps the afghan government from time to time but that of course is destructive besides the fact i might mention this, it kills people, which is undesirable. and they might be prepared to stop that in that case. perhaps more important is that iran has a great deal of influence, softcover as it has been referred to in afghanistan. there are many afghan political leaders who they have close ties and it's known that they give cash to the presidency as the united aids. they give cash to other political leaders in afghanistan. they have members of the talib
taliban, they have contact with them. of course the price is often money which means that in the future, whether there is a full-scale insurgency war or not, every political move will continue to be negotiated in a very tense and unstable situation. in particular, the outcome of the next year's presidential election will very likely be negotiated. i don't mean the voting is irrelevant. but it's not an probable that the vote and the vote counting will not be decisive. there will be uncertainty about who got how many legitimate votes. we don't know yet if the country is capable of holding a second round. even if it is, forming a new government will require a huge amount of negotiation among various powerholders you u.s. and iran are still not speaking to each other at that point, or the fear each of his influence
in afghanistan, that would have a very negative influence on those investigations. if they are engaged and they can communicate, they as well as other powers will play a very positive role in enabling the afghan political actors to reach agreement on the successor regime and the same goes for a political settlement. because the fear about political settlement which would involve changing the political dispensation. i should mention in those discussions between the taliban and the united dates haven't said anything about that. they are concerned about the presence in iran and the prisoners in guantánamo. nonetheless, again that would be also a very tense and a difficult political negotiation. if iran feels excluded or that such a political settlement would be at its expense than it could be very disruptive whereas if it were included it could help find solutions to some of the very difficult problems, some of which involve water
inside afghanistan. so, what happens today is quite crucial because it may open the door for .. helpful to the security and political outcomes and to the american efforts. >> i want to start with fatemeh. you talked a little bit about iran and pakistan. but one of the issues that has also been at th that the dispute between the united states and iran to export natural gas to the region for the so-called peace pipeline iran has constructed its portion of the
pipeline. it is to go to pakistan and eventually india but the policy has kept us from happening. do you foresee any possible change on the front and if you could also say something about sharif, iran had to deal with a relatively benign government for the last few years in their point of view, but sharif is close to the societies and there have been more instances in baluchistan were both pakistan and iran face in true debate to -- insurgencies and the 14 iranians and the border guards were killed recently and the rumor is that, you know, the saudis gave the money and they gave them a green light to support the groups. so the peace pipeline is better. is there a better chance now? what do you think that is going to do for the pakistan
relations? >> let me say something to answer your question. there is an exhibition -- expression meaning something started very big and what you have from the peace pipeline is a synthesized model. the peace pipeline has involved several prime ministers and at least including rhouanni in iraq. so it would continue and would be go beyond. but there's also a good chance that that is what iran thinks at this point from all of the stories that come from pakistan. on the pakistan -based institute
to describe the disaster is or just to, you know, discuss the pricing but if you know the deal is not going to go anywhere and pakistan will have money. and then they start talking about pulling the deal and the pipeline from pakistan. so i think pakistan is waiting to see how it goes with the negotiations. that could have an impact -- on
any different aspect. the prisons in afghanistan and the peace pipeline. and if the sanctions on iran oil and gas is removed, there's a chance they could invite india to join the project again. it's not in conflict that was promoted that was supported to get into afghanistan who india and pakistan and afghanistan. but the security of both pipelines we have to compare one tribal area that is a relatively unsafe area on the peace pipeline that goes through the relatively safe area in pakistan and iran. asked to baluchistan, by the
way, sharif was also involved in the peace pipeline. it's nothing that he's forced to take but baluchistan as you know the insurgency historically you don't have rules in that area and the most surprised area and also the report shows the pakistan government that broke down on the insurgency and it's very similar. but most control of and of course iran over the region so so they are not doing enough to
secure the border. it's going on for quite some time but in the media you would see that they are kind of blaming the pakistan government for being upset with the borders and not anything in pakistan of course they believed that sharif is close but there is a difference when one of the officials put it out the other day that it's close to saudi arabia but is not the agent of saudi arabia and pakistan. it may be different but the other day the transfer of nuclear technologies that deal might change, but back to insurgency by the presidency
unfortunately iran's response to these kind of insurgencies have been very harsh and keeping people prisoner. some of them to kind of lesser terms. they have instituted in revenge to the insurgency. so, during, their approach is they would exchange prisoners for the group in baluchistan. the change for the government unfortunately had increased the violence and the resentment from
the population against the central government. but the leader is a very different person and has really presented to go crazy to calm people down. and we've talked about the importance to bring people together basically. >> on the water issues, we stole shamelessly from a white paper that's not yet been published that was written, and you have a very good recommendation on a water expert group that you would like to set up. where do things stand in terms of who is advising afghanistan on water and what's happening next year under us troops start
to withdraw and funding is go down? will it be possible to work with other countries in the area on the river basin in particular? >> i believe that a lot of what we have seen him play right now is a huge role by the usaid in capacity building because right now it is incumbent on afghanistan to have people trained to work with the water issues and i believe right now the government of afghanistan sees that as a shortfall that they do know they need some capacity building. and usaid is fundamentally involved in that. i believe th that universities n the area are also playing a role which is important to see. the university in kabul and kandahar are trying to bring forth some experts. the problem is in many of these areas they are considered on the permissive environments. a love o lot of the people in kl don't want to go down because they preceded to be kind of the wild west and it is just out of
control down there. so, the perception of this all needs to change and i believe that there's also issues of considering water information to be a matter of national security. and a lot of times people don't feel compelled to share that. and they know that in the region when speaking in central asia and pakistan and india that the water information is gathered and is yours. so, the degree to which we can help with analysis that we are not dependent on countries actually sharing a dialogue where we can get a sense of seeing it that has a role in this as well. but post- 2014 i believe that one of the issues that is good to come up as protecting the little bit of monitoring areas we've already got an established because you've got to engage in population and have them see a vested interest in understanding education is a huge component of
making it all work on a watershed scale. hispanic i encountered this issue as a political level working as a political consultant to the un assisting the afghan government and addressing the afghan national development strategy and the afghanistan compact in 2,005, 2,006. and what i found is that there is a very high level of mistrust at the highest levels of the afghan government in the water issues and in particular, there was a proposal to put in the contact something about afghanistan signing agreements with its neighbors which is actually required under the international law to get the project and levels of suspicion was so high that i was removed from the document. so i just want to emphasize the
fact security, confidence building are likely to be necessary before we can move on to implement these ideas where there are good technical solutions that may be waiting that where the suspicions are extremely high and the stakes are very hi. >> if i can add one thing in afghanistan i'm sure you saw this. the different ministries play their cards close and hold them close to their chest, the ministry of water and culture, irrigation, livestock, moral rehabilitation and development all have different interests and water and there needs to be different communication among them even in the united states we find those interagency dialogs. quickly i'm going to go to the audience. adjust your sense of what's going to happen next year. whether afghanistan is going to
make it after these elections and whether the u.s. and nato will be able to withdraw and peace. >> i've never claimed to be an expert because i've never been there. and i -- after what we've been through the past couple of months, i would hesitate to make predictions about the future in the united states. however, i am confident they will produce a result that will be recognized as a government. and that at least as long as the absolutely necessary financial support to the salaries of the security forces out of the government go along. there will be plenty of political crises and other emergencies but there's not going to be a collapse of the state as you saw after the soviet withdrawal. the regional situation is radically different.
there is a regional consensus even including pakistan and strongly including china, which pakistan would like to alienate. there should be the taliban government in afghanistan. there are differences on what will become of hi them should py in the future set up of the country. i would also add one other factor which is that i have extensive personal relations with the members of the political elite in afghanistan and of course there are many things they do that they don't tell me about. but i have observed a huge change in the past 13 years in their relations with each other, something which isn't often commented on 13 years ago they didn't know each other. their relations were yelling at each other over the radio. now including the people who are political, they all know each other and have worked together.
prior to the election all of the candidates were running with each other and met each other extensively to talk about the rules for the game and how to resolve it and i'm confident that however disputed the outcome may be, those people with their relations with each other and the right international support will be able to find some kind of a settlement even if many of them were not that happy with it. we have a lot of experts in this audience, which is great. >> thank you, barbara and to the panel. i have a two-part question the first one directed to fatemeh talking about the pakistan iran pipeline. there have been concerns if and when the pipeline is ever completed even in the first leg
of the iran and pakistan if there will be enough gas available to put into the pipeline. if you could comment on that. the second question is addressed to both you and barney. this deals with the role of the groups in the region and whether there is still official support for these activities and what role pakistan plays in allowing these groups to address its territory as very clear-cut or is this something happening in despite of what the government of pakistan would want to happ happen. >> to the pipeline first. of course that is a fact that from any, you know, any
resources you would see that the scope is limited. the problem with iran is that they have failed to invest for 34 years. if 100 of what they have in the program and the ways and means to store the nuclear site they would be in better shape. one major problem is gas is evaporated from the south park because they don't have the means to restore it. so one way for them to -- the right way actually to find the closest route and that was pakistan obviously that could
have the major and very good project also involved. at this point, for every day that is delayed in delivering about, they are all losing something. not just money but the gas because they cannot just store it. i'm not an expert in the technical terms in regards to gas and oil, but they have other alternatives. they concentrated heavily. the targeted pakistan and afghanistan, india and obviously that is why i called it the lion's tail and mane. so, they have done a lot providing pakistan with $500 million to start the
project and they are getting impatient. but i doubted the doubt they wo. i personally think it would just go on and on and they would reach negotiations and to sanction would have a major impact on what happens with the peace pipeline. can i just mention -- the leader was hanged in 2010, and the manpower during the insurgent group is not clear. no one knows how many people they had. there is a fine line between being involved in drug trafficking networks and freedom. they haven't claimed freedom. after the leader was hanged in
>> did you want to say something quite. >> just briefly which opposes in the context where afghanistan, pakistan and iran meet. it's a largely nomadic people like many transported people they are involved in what we call smuggling and they call trade. and the relations with the government are ambiguous. afghanistan hasn't had an internal problem primarily because afghanistan has supported the rebels in both iran and pakistan. pakistan is now going through it as the insurgency in baluchistan which is a second nationalist insurgency which is in conflict with the taliban both ethnic and ideological lines.
the intensification of the ideological part of the regime under a minute led to more discontent among the populations of iran including. the united states may be supporting the pakistan, the baluchistan insurgency from afghanistan iran has charged that pakistan and perhaps the united states and saudi arabia may be supporting the iranian baluchistan inside iran. the truth of these very charges is rather murky. however as a part of our policy in this administration, one of the measures that we tried to take early on in order to send a message to iran that the us
presence in afghanistan was directed at the stabilization of afghanistan and not iran was to make it clear that the united states did not support, and though it took quite a long time to get the interagency process, he was declared a foreign service organization in 2010. now bear in mind the wall does not require the united states government to declare any organization that meets the criteria a foreign terrorist organization. there's political latitude as to whether it is a good idea or not and there were people in the government argued that regardless of the empirical merits of the case that wasn't the time to do something that iran might consider a concessi concession. he did do it but it was less than all the noise of the other us iran relationship ended in a function as a confidence building measure. in the current nuclear negotiations, however, given the reactions that they are likely to cause in the saudi arabia and
israel could very well be. perhaps you've already seen a factor in further aggravating the situation in particular because of the potential for the saudi involvement or the perception of the involvement. >> with the microphone and say your name, please. >> i have the american foundation right now former diplomat. i will start with water if you don't mind quickly. now, what's the situation looks like and i think that you have slid right to it there is mistrust and a lack of political will because afghanistan and the government feel vulnerable and they don't have the type of -- they don't feel secure enough to be able to address it. so i think that part of it has to do with the fact that we don't have the capacities
domestically to deal with this issue and especially at the top level of the government. and there is probably a lack of knowledge which translates to in action. nobody wants to touch this because they think it is a hot potato. and i have a question for barn barney. going back to iran. if you think that iran for example over the next few months joins russia, china, india by not opposing and tolerating it, what impact would that have on the conciliation of the taliban on the april elections as well as the compensation forming the
grouping of the governments concerned. as bad as far as the political will and the complications of the situation, when he was the head set up some watershed organizations to help maintain a continuity across the watershed across the implementation of the plan it's very provocative and very hard with an even afghanistan. they have helmand province which is facilitated by the international forces and in opportunity to bring afghans together to discuss the situation. in that meeting it was the first
time that they had sat together to have this discussion. historically and culturally they were connected with kandahar. it was an interesting at the end of that meeting the people at home and who were upstream. we understand your concerns and we will form a committee and i think that was the last. >> i wouldn't predict a quick change in the position verbally because of the ideological role in opposition to the united displays and legitimacy of the iranian regime. but the hard-liners have tried
to rig a position to the united states almost into a sixth pillar of islam although it isn't mentioned in the holy koran. therefore, it would be hard to walk back from the verbal opposition. however, if the nuclear negotiations to continue to progress, then the perception that an american presence in afghanistan is a direct threat to iran will definitely be reduced. and therefore, i would expect that regardless of the evolution of iran's policy it will not undertake active measures to dissuade afghanistan from signing the agreement or make life more difficult for the american forces. and i'm sure as the actions will be read clearly in afghanistan throughout the region.
within afghanistan's political elites in the current system as far as i can see there is a consensus in favor and even those who iran regards do not echo the position on that or i should say more precisely. from time to time one of them has said something to keep the money flowing from iran but they do not say it with any conviction. they seem to be mobilizing the followers that or anything like that. so, i think that to the extent that it is a settled issue and it is not part of the debate it will not be a factor. it's important for the taliban because the legitimation of the struggle is on the basis of fighting the foreign occupation.
if i can just summarize some interactions with people, what does and what to say the peace camp in the telegram and the current negotiation they say similar to iran that the presence of the us troops what they political agreement about afghans impossible because they can't believe that there is a reasonably level playing field as long as the us and international security is supporting those who are in power now but therefore the troops should leave and then this would be very easy for afghans to reach an agreement. of course if the united states believe that that of course we don't believe that. i'm not sure the telegram believe it either. so the argument back to them even is well we don't believe
you. we don't believe that will happen. therefore as long as there is a political settlement. if there is a political settlement, then of course those troops are only there by the agreement of the afghan government. if at some point the afghan government doesn't want to of course i think the united states would be very happy to take them away. i want to emphasize the united states is not seeking that agreement ttheagreement to haven capabilities and south and central asia. they have those military bases in afghanistan as the most expensive ways to have that. if anyone has ever tried to setup and manage a military base in afghanistan with no. >> i'm going to take three questions. the gentl gentleman in the fron.
>> from the afghanistan council i have two comments. one is that iran does have territorial problems in the west with iraq. they went to war and in south asia the problem created in 2,001 the treaty was a sensible, pragmatic one from the afghan side. but surprisingly there was a true a few months later because the communists opposed to. when there was a re- approach but with the president then there was another coup which leads me to the point that it's crucial for 2014 for afghanistan to have a sensible government. and as a matter of fact i know of at least one or two candidates for the future, for
this water negotiation. so it's there. it's not that it doesn't exist it just needs international backing. >> the former intern that wrote a paper that we cite. >> we also have two questions. first for doctor rubin. the way they are going to policy tends if the iranians then do get on the table how do you think the pakistanis and the politicians who had iranian money etc. but if you have the iranians and a small foot on the door -- in the door. and my question to the doctor mac is what are the international organizations because when you are talking about iran or any organizations doing work on the ground or
no one is helping them out either. so the u.s. could potentially heay a bigger role perhaps >> sure. >> one of the issues that i'm glad you brought it up is the crop, and i know iran, afghans have been involved in wars now. e meeting the next five years. you just have other agriculture products which is something that profits and is basically short term and you would not use anything if you have to leave. so how did iranians trying to help, trying to help afghans, taking them agriculture communism switching to other
products. i don't know how close are following that, but it would contribute basically to helping afghans, and helping afghans with water management would definitely help afghans switch to other, you know, move away from poppy crop. that's actually one of the things iranians are asking a national commission to involve iranians because they claim they know how to do it. >> thank you for that question. as for the international groups working with the world bank, food and agriculture organization's to install so monitoring stations. problems of the monitoring stations get put in. there is not specific maintenance. you can collect all the data in the world but if you don't have any analysis plan, what's the purpose? that i've been watching.
a lot of times asian development bank seven funding, as well as in just put in wells across the country. however, there are some ms. glenn metrics because many times those groups are interested in the amount of money they can obligate and the number of jobs they can create, but the true sustainability of the project from representative, everyone instruments the project they want to do and there's no -- how you want to back that you may not have it. and truly, finally other in national organizations that are working with the environment, as barbara alluded to very early in this, there is an internationally recognized wetlands area at the border with iran and afghanistan but however since 1999 timeframe is been severely degraded to a lot of this is because of climate issues. there's not water going into the system. a lot of that is tied to management of water or mismanagement of water.
>> barney, final thoughts? >> first just about drugs. just repeat what's been said before. the adoption of poppy cultivation and its concurrent trafficking is an adaptation to insecurity in afghanistan. that's what all the study show. it will not be eliminated as long as people are insecure. there are provinces with strong governors in afghanistan that have a limited optical commission. no one has a limited drug trafficking. it cannot be as long as there so much insecurity in the country. nice to meet you off the internet. if understood your question, correctly, it was about whether pakistan would react negatively and perhaps disruptively to greater iranian involvement. pakistan's involvement in afghanistan is not motivated by
its concerns over iran. pakistan's involvement in afghanistan is motivated, first, by its internal concerns by its own unity. second, i threat from india. pakistan's actions in response to those perceived threats -- in response to perceived threats have it generate an arena response the pakistan iran conflict is not the main issue. i think, i should also add iran's ambitions in afghanistan are limited. in contrast to pakistan i would say iran's means to influence events in afghanistan are probably greater than its ambitions, whereas pakistan's means to influence events in afghanistan has been considerably less than its ambitions and pakistan is, therefore, going through a very
difficult process of trying to adjust its ambitions to israel capabilities. and a time when it's also internally and tremendous turmoil as well. >> thank you so much. thank you to our speakers. i think -- i've many more questions but i'm sure you all do. this is a great beginning. thank you so much for coming. [applause] >> i think regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, we all feel fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america. it's a very unique place, and if america was considered to be a product, and we do try to sell our product overseas, what's our brand? i think our brand is the constitution, the rule of law, and our value system, and under
that brand and value system, there is that notion of equal under the eyes of the law. i know that brand and value system is the ada and trying to elevate the rights of americans with disabilities. >> this is a treaty. a treaty is a law. the emotional and political arguments that are in favor of the treaty, no one disagrees with these arguments, but the question is, will the treaty actually have the legal effect that's being proctored by the proponents of the treaty? we don't hear citations in the articles of the treaty. we don't hear consideration of the reports, the concluding observations. by the committee on the rights of persons with diabetics. we don't hear the legal analysis appropriate for animal -- analyzing the legal impacts of the treaty. >> more than 130 countries ratified the treaty that failed to win senate approval in 2012. this week, the senate foreign relations committee took up the
treaty again. watch at ten eastern on c-span2's booktv, gladwell e plains how underdogs use the status to their advantage and upsides of being a big fish in a small pound saturday night at 11. on c-span3's american history tv, on a crowded sacramento street, two feet from ford, they pulled the trigger. more sunday at 5:30 p.m.. >> after becoming first lady, mamie eisenhower ran a tight ship at the white house wearing white imloaf inspections and had a record number of state visits. watch saturday at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span, and live monday night, our series continues. >> mrs. kennedy is very well known as a style icon, admiration of the fashion sense. she put a lot of thought into her wardrobe when she was representing the country, both at the white house and while
traveling abroad. she would think about what colors would mean something to the country i'm about to visit, so for her visits to canada, she chose a red suit by pierra cardin is a gesture to the red of the maple leaf. >> i add mire the thoughts put into the wardrobe and she knew the advantage of choosing a color or style to stand out in a crowd. >> first lady kennedy monday night live at nine eastern on c-span. >> washington journal recently broadcast from cushing, oklahoma to talk about the oil industry considered by some as the american oil kingdom, oklahoma houses the biggest oil supply with more than 80 million barrels of oil storage capacity. next, a look at the facilities there and how the operation works. this is two and a half hours. a
in oklahoma? >> this is the site of the whool wheeler number one. it was the discovery we will for the cushing oil field drilled in 1912. this actual we will here is a redrill of the original we will because the original well would have been a cable fuel drilling, would have had problems with it over the years just by the nature of cable. so this would be a rotary hole here. and this is the site. so there's a plaque right over there that talks about this being a discovery well of the cushing field. >> after it was discovered, what did this place look like? what happens happening here? >> this place was a tent city. there was no -- it wouldn't have been called the cushing
field. but cushing was the only town in existence when this field was discovered. right now there's oil tons and drum rights and sham rocks all sprange up overnight because this well was discovered here. it was a tent city. as you drove through there, it's very hoil and it would have been -- hilly and it would have been a nightmare trying to plan this city. but it was like gold fever here. the black gold rush was on. and all these things sprung up overnight, actually. >> and how much was the cushing field producing in its heyday? guest: it was the largest oil field in the world and it produced 300,000 barrels out of probably a 5 by 15 mile area. which would be 75 square miles produced 300,000 barrels.
the whole state of oklahoma does between 200 and 300 today. so it produced more than the whole state does. >> in fact, in the early 1900s, what role did cushing play overall in the country's economy when it came to oil? >> well, cushing was -- you know, the figures i get out of these books i read all my life. but the price of oil was somewhere between $1 and $1.5 a barrel and it drove the preist down to 25 cents a barrel. there was such a glut. they didn't know how to store it. they stored it in earthen pits. gushers that you see were real things. the environment lists would go crazy back then but no one knew how to do that. i understand five commercial skimmers that skimmed the oil off the rivers back then. they didn't know how to contain it when -- the infancy of the oil industry.
so all those tanks over there, cushing had rail heads, cushing was an existing town. and they shipped a lot of oil over there during world war one to the east coast to help power the ships that fought in world war one. >> how has cushing chaked over the years? -- changed over the years? >> cushing evolved in the sense that there's still a lot of production, but small production. there used to be a lot of people that made a lot of money just oining an oil field. because back in the early days you would get one-eighth of every barrel. so people own add lot of money -- made a lot of money. an it's -- there's incredible pipeline in industry. they have ten cranes.
it's like a little city south of town. they're building the pipelines through here and it's still a major help of storage with all those tanks afment lot of tank farms, a lot of tank farm companies and they're moving oil all the time. so that aspect of it has changed. but it's still got a lot of viability to it. host: cushing, oklahoma has dubbed itself the pipeline crossroads of the world. that's the sign that you see when you enter and exit the town of cushing. it does so because there are 13 crude oil storage companies that operate what are known as tank farms. and the capacity to store oil has reached 80 million barrels in that city. our camera is there this morning and is stationed as one of those tank farms owned by enbridge and we're joined by the company's director and general manager there. mr. muller let's begin with
what is a tank farm? guest: it's simply a complex that has multiple tanks. the enbridge facility has about 93 tanks and a various network of piping that will bring the oil into the various tanks, stage them, store them, and then transport them to a third-party pipe or different terminal. host: so what happens there on a daily basis? guest: well, on a daily basis we have about 13 pipelines, about 7 that come in, about 6 or 7 that go out. so our customers that we call shippers nominate or tell us what crude oil they want shipped and where to, and we provide that service. simply shipping a batch of crude oil from point a or point b, or parking it and storing it in a tank, if you will, as well as blending operations for our customers. host: so why cushing, oklahoma,
then? guest: well, it's got a really interesting history, as you well know, with the wild catters of 1912 start prod ducks and frankly just outproduced the refinely capacity so they had to build these storage pipes and tanks. with the last refinery shutoring its doors, the infrastructure in place, they chose cushing as a clearing house for all the future contracts on the light swede crude. and with that, us and several other companies have invested into the cushing complex and now we store the crude oil. host: it's an interesting for wall street on a daily basis. explain. guest: sure. the mynesm where individuals and companies can trade futures crabblingts, they clear actedly come to a physical contract here in cushing in one of our tanks or across the street in an enterprise tank. and with that the oil trade has
got a very liquid market here in cushing. host: so there are 13 companies, enbridge, enterprise, ma jellen. are you one of the largest? how big are the other companies? guest: we're one of the largest. we've got about 20 million barrels of storage. there's others that are about the same size. and then there's about 10 or so that are of variant sizes. one to five million barrels each. host: and cushing, oklahoma, the largest facility of storage . why is that -- what's your capacity at right now in cushing? guest: well, we've got about 80 million barrels of storage from a shale capacity, about 65 million of what they call useable or working volume. so in there at any one time we might have that 65 million barrels of working stock in the cushing complex. and as we have seen of late, some of those volumes, those
barrels are shipped out and the volume is not full, it is not towards the 65 million but it is maybe around 35 million barrels of storage. >> why are the storage tanks even necessary? >> again with the pipeline operation, you're taking product from point a to point b. and when you want to do that you have to stage or store that barrel because crude comes in varying slates. so if you have a west texas intermediate or a heavy sour, you'll need to keep those separated in two different tanks. so these tanks allow us to not only store crude for a given period of time based on our customers' desires, but also to keep that crude separated so that when a refinery orders a west texas intermediate, they get west texas intermediate crude and when they order a heavy sour they'll get a heavy sour. >> why are they above ground? >> i think the ease of construction, the environmental
concerns that are first and foremost in every one of our operating companies here, enbridge takes that very seriously. there's a ton of design safety built into the design as well as the long-term operations of these facilities. and above grade certainly we're able to very much keep a monitor on every tank that we have. >> explain to viewers how they are built. >> sure. we typically start with what we call a ring wall, which is like a foundation of your house. it's a concrete ring to support the massive weight of these structures. and then the steel is built similar to if you will a can of tuna fish. and inside that, it actually has a roof that floats up and down on top of the oil. so as oil comes in, that roof floats up. and as oil comes out, that roof floats down. >> what is used to build them and how often do you build a
new one? >> we've got several contractors that can build those type of facilities. and of late here we've built a significant amount of tanks. in 2004 when enbridge bought the facility from shell, there's about 84 tanks, 7.5 million barrels of capacity. today we're at 93 tanks but 20 million barrels of storage. so in essence, we take them down, the older and vintage tanks and replace them with new and much larger tanks. >> when do you say we're going to build a new tank? is it based on a client's needs or on production in the country? >> absolutely. we work with our customer base and they come to us in competing terminals. and when the deal is struck to build a tank we will build that tank. and we will be contractually
held to get it in service when they need that in service. >> and how much does one of those storage tanks cost and how long does it take to build one? >> cost varies certainly on size. 5, $6 where from 3, 4, million and beyond. and time frames are probably six to nine months to build a tank when you start with the groundwork, build the floor and take the steel up and install the roof. >> how do you address environmental concerns and risks with storing crude oil? >> certainly prodecting the environment here and everywhere we operate is important to our stakeholders, the land owners, the communities and all that. we have several monitoring devices on these tanks, we have level indicators, pumps with pressure indicators, video cameras that -- surveillance cameras that keep an eye on the terminal as a whole.
and we do a material balance or the computer watches all these instrumentation inputs and ensures that the system is in balance and we're not losing any product. >> what about weather concerns? oklahoma is known as tornado ally. how secure are these structures? >> again, in the design phase, safety is built in including the tornadoic activity. so code is prescribed of which we build all of our tanks to which can withstand the tornado activity. fortunately, curk has never had a direct hit by a tornado. but as you know with the tragic events earlier this year, they do exist in the general region here. but again, design and efforts and safety is built in for those type of events. >> what about national security? because there's a lot of oil that could be stored at those
tank farms there in cushing. >> security is paramount to our facility and every facility around here. we want to make sure that the product is kept away from anybody that has ill intent, i guess. we do have security guards again we have surveillance cameras and we have people on this site 24 hours a day, 365 days a year watching that. >> you have a 24/7 control center. we visited that in september. we can't show our viewers the computer screen but explain what happens at the control center. what are they looking for? >> day-to-day life of one of our operators, we have pump orders, or orders which are basically directives from our customers. they want a batch of crude taken from a third party terminal brought in to our terminal and stored or they want it brought in from a third party terminal through our
terminal to a pipeline that we feed to take it to a market, whether that be chicago or the gulf coast, wherever that may be. >> i want to end our conversation with you, before we go on to other folks there, talk about how specifically at the enbridge terminal, your business has changed with the rise of oil production and natural gas production in this country. >> there's really a dynamic shift in the crude oil markets here in north america. we have pipes today, that used to bring offshore crude from tankers into cushing and then distribute it to markets beyond cushing. with the shale play, the oil sands of canada, that production domestic production comes down to cushing, and now we can pipe that down to the gulf coast through a reverse pipeline. >> mike muller is the director and general manager at enbridge. talking about pipelines there.
we're going to talk with another enbridge executive as well, transcanada, about the pipelines and how they work specifically. thank you this morning for joining us, a very early morning there in cushing, oklahoma. >> thanks. it was great to be with you. >> our next guest here coming up from enbridge's terminal is russell evans with the oklahoma city university's school of business. we're going to be talking to him about the role cushing has played throughout its history in the oil industry and the overall energy sector as well. but first, here's president obama from last week. he was pitching the u.s. economy to foreign investors and he highlighted the energy sector of the u.s. economy as one of the bright spots. >> we have pursued an all of the above energy strategy and we are producing more traditional energy, more
renewable energy than ever before, more natural gas than anyone in the world, and we have cut our carbon pollution in the process. so while the case for doing business with america has always been strong, we've made it stronger. and of course you will find no better workers than american workers. our productivity is rising. we have the world's best universities. its most innovative entrepreneurs. we have the strongest intellectual property protections to go along with a rule of law that matches up with anyone. and, thanks in part to a new initiative focused on exports and the new trade agreement that is i have signed we sell more products to the rest of the world than ever before. so as you have heard repeatedly today and you will hear undoubtedly after i leave this stage, america is open for
business. and businesses have responded. after a decade in which many jobs left the united states to go overseas, now we are seeing companies starting to bring jobs back because they're seeing the advantages of being located here. catter pillar is bringing jobs back from japan. ford is bringing jobs back from mexico. after locating plants in other countries like china, intel is opening its most advanced plant here in the united states. and there are a whole range of factors involved. people are looking at lower energy costs here, stability, the increased productivity of our workers. all these things are adding up. and people are saying, why would we want to be outside the world's largest market when we can get our products made effectively here and as a gr